Among other criteria, they list:
"A) Positive Criteria:
2. As regards revelation: true theological and spiritual doctrine and immune from error;
...
B) Negative Criteria:
b) Doctrinal errors attributed to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or to some saint in their manifestations, taking into account however the possibility that the subject might have added, even unconsciously, purely human elements or some error of the natural order to an authentic supernatural revelation"

I've been saying this for some time now. A CPR that teaches doctrinal errors in its messages cannot be from Heaven. Conversely, the TPR not only lacks such errors, but teaches sound doctrine in a heavenly manner, with the profound yet subtle wisdom of God. And I've often noted that a TPR could have some limited errors due to misunderstandings of the visionary.

The problem, of course, is that the application of these norms is by the temporal authority of the Church, which is fallible. In judging the facts of a case, they can be misinformed, or they can err, even to the extent of approving of a FPR and rejecting a TPR. So the decision under these norms is not definitive.

Among other criteria, they list:
"A) Positive Criteria:
2. As regards revelation: true theological and spiritual doctrine and immune from error;
...
B) Negative Criteria:
b) Doctrinal errors attributed to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or to some saint in their manifestations, taking into account however the possibility that the subject might have added, even unconsciously, purely human elements or some error of the natural order to an authentic supernatural revelation"

I've been saying this for some time now. A CPR that teaches doctrinal errors in its messages cannot be from Heaven. Conversely, the TPR not only lacks such errors, but teaches sound doctrine in a heavenly manner, with the profound yet subtle wisdom of God. And I've often noted that a TPR could have some limited errors due to misunderstandings of the visionary.

The problem, of course, is that the application of these norms is by the temporal authority of the Church, which is fallible. In judging the facts of a case, they can be misinformed, or they can err, even to the extent of approving of a FPR and rejecting a TPR. So the decision under these norms is not definitive.

The report on Medjugorje is to be completed and provided to The Holy See before this year end.

Perhaps. I'm sure that the commission will condemn Medjugorje, and the condemnation of Garabandal will quickly follow. There is a committee/administrative aspect to this process; it is not an act of the Magisterium. And so the decision can err. Also, it is unlikely that a set of on-going apparitions could receive approval; they have no way of knowing what will be said next in the messages.

Medjugorje will be wrongly condemned by the commission, and then there will be a falling away. Subsequently, the Warning, Consolation, and Miracle will restore everyone's faith in Medj and Garabandal.